Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANAIn Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig MDL No. 2179"Deepwater Horizon"in the Gulf of Mexico,on April 20, 2010 SECTION: JThis Document Relates to:All Cases JUDGE BARBIERMAG. JUDGE SHUSHAN_____________________________________________/ PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO VACATEPRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER
 
[As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement]
 Selmer M. Salvesen ("Plaintiff") respectfully requests that this Honorable Court vacateits Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property Damages ClassAction Settlement], Rec. Doc. 6418 dated May 2, 2012, for the following reasons.INTRODUCTIONOn June 15, 2011, Plaintiff Salvesen filed his action against Defendants Kenneth R.Feinberg, Feinberg Rozen, LLP, GCCF, and William G. Green, Jr. in the Circuit Court of theTwentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida asserting claims for gross negligence,negligence, negligence per se, fraud, fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, and unjustenrichment under Florida state law. On July 6, 2011, Defendants removed the
Salvesen
case tothe U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff Salvesen filed his Motion toRemand on July 18, 2011. The case was subsequently transferred by the JPML to the MDL 2179Court on October 6, 2011.
See Salvesen v. Feinberg, et al.
, 2:11-cv-02533.Phase I of a multi-
 phase trial in Transocean’s Limitation and Liability Action, Case No.
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6831-1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 25
 
10-2771, was scheduled for February 27, 2012. On February 26, 2012, the eve of the Limitationand Liability Trial, the Court adjourned proceedings for one week to allow BP and the PSC tomake further progress on their settlement talks. (Rec. Doc. 5887). On March 2, 2012, the Courtwas informed that BP and the PSC had reached an Agreement-in-Principle on the proposedsettlements. Consequently, the Court adjourned Phase I of the trial, because of the potential forrealignment of the parties in this litigation and substantial changes to the current trial plan. (Rec.Doc. 5955).
On March 8, 2012, at the parties’ request, the Court entered an Order creating a proce
ss
to facilitate the transition from the GCCF to the “Court Supervised Settlement Program”
envisioned by the settlement. (Rec. 5995). On April 16, 2012, the PSC filed a new class actioncomplaint to serve as the vehicle for the proposed Economic and Property Damage Settlement.
See
No. 12-970,
 Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., et al. v. BP Exploration & Production Inc.
,
et al.
 The class action complaint was amended on May 2, 2012. (Rec. Doc. 6412). On April 18, 2012,the PSC and BP filed their Proposed Settlement (Rec. Doc. 6276). On May 2, 2012, the Courtentered a Preliminary Approval Order [As to the Proposed Economic and Property DamagesClass Action Settlement] (Rec. Doc. 6418).Plaintiff Salvesen re-filed his Motion to Remand and Memorandum in Support with thisCourt on November 14, 2011 (Rec. Doc. 4575). On December 4, 2011, Plaintiff Salvesen filedhis Motion in Opposition to Class Certification of Any Action in MDL No. 2179 andMemorandum in Support (Rec. Doc. 4798). Plaintiff Salvesen filed his Motion to Vacate Orderand Reasons [As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 Master Complaint] and Memorandum in Supporton April 8, 2012 (Rec. Doc. 6186). These three motions remain pending in this Honorable Court.-2-
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6831-1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 25
 
LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. The Proposed Settlement Is Not Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate.
Rule 23(e) places the burden of persuasion on the movers that the proposed settlement is
“fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
 In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig.
, 2012
WL 92498, at *7 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2012). If the proposed settlement “discloses no reason to
doubt its fairness, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatmentto class representatives or segments of the class, does not grant excessive compensation toattorneys, and appears to fall within the range of possible approval, the court should grant
 preliminary approval.”
In re OCA, Inc. Sec. & Deriv. Litig.
, No. 05-2165, 2008 WL 4681369, at*11 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 2008).
1. The Proposed Settlement Provides Misleading Information to Class Members.
Under
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (‘
OPA
”)
, claims for damages must be presented firstto the responsible party. 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a). In the event that a claim for damages is not paid bythe responsible party within 90 days, the claimant may elect to commence an action in courtagainst the responsible party or to present the claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.33 U.S.C. § 2713(c).
“The Court is satisfied that, pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Settlement, Class
Members who opt out or who possess reserved claims will be able to pursue those claims
effectively outside the Class Settlement.” (p. 26, Rec. Doc. 6418).
BP and the PSC have misledthis Honorable Court and Class Members.
(a) The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
The OPA provides the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (“OSLTF”) to pay for oil spill costs
-3-
Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6831-1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 3 of 25
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more